To Paul Offit: An invitation to a public, evidence-bounded discussion
I’m proposing a structured, public, evidence-bounded discussion addressing one narrow question: "Did the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a clear net mortality benefit?"
An invitation to a public, evidence-bounded discussion
Dr. Paul Offit has argued that scientific questions should be resolved in peer-reviewed venues rather than on debate stages. In principle, I agree.
In practice, however, the public has no direct way to evaluate whether the conclusions of influential COVID-19 vaccine papers are actually supported by the underlying data and methods.
For that reason, I’m proposing a structured, public, evidence-bounded discussion focused exclusively on the published literature addressing one narrow question:
Did the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines show a clear net mortality benefit based on the studies available in the peer-reviewed literature?
Proposed format
Duration: 60 minutes (or as long as Dr. Offit thinks is sufficient to cover the topic)
Scope: Peer-reviewed papers only
Preparation: Each participant submits up to three papers in advance; the reference list is shared publicly at least 14 days before the discussion
Structure:
Brief presentation of each paper’s claims and methods
Focused discussion of assumptions, bias, and interpretation
No appeals to authority, intent, or policy—only what the papers actually demonstrate
Equal talk time for both sides
The goal is not to “win” a debate, but to allow a technically literate audience to see—clearly and transparently—how different experts interpret the same published evidence.
To acknowledge the time commitment, I will make a substantial donation to a charitable organization of Dr. Offit’s choosing. The discussion, transcript, and referenced materials will be made publicly available in full.
If Dr. Offit would prefer not to participate in a direct discussion with me, I am equally open to having the discussion with another academic expert of his choosing, provided the discussion follows the same evidence-bounded format.
Given the importance of this topic to public trust in medicine, I believe a careful, transparent examination of the published literature—conducted in the open—would be of real value.
Related articles
Written by me:
I just offered Paul Offit $1M to have a public debate on COVID vaccine safety for 1 hour
Paul Offit responds to multiple challenges by deferring to the peer-reviewed literature
Written by Paul Offit:
Written by Jenna McCarthy:
And if anyone wants to catch up on studies, I recommend "Neither Safe Nor Effective: The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines, 3rd Edition," by Dr. Colleen Huber, which cites 1,000 studies. Amaze your friends and family!
https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Safe-Nor-Effective-Evidence/dp/B0F1ZJGYKG
Steve, you've done excellent science here and it well warrants the sort of audience all your debate challenges would garner. Having the truth seen by such audiences would be immensely helpful to society. I don't believe these people will ever debate you though. At this point, you've clearly shown them up as chickens. I think you should move onto other strategies for having your body of work more widely known. Here's one idea: I often quip that this conflict will be settled by geologists. I believe scientists in non-health fields just assume their peers in public health are doing sound science. Great things might shake out if you can show them otherwise. They might object to the misguided public policy that has resulted from the shoddy science. They might object to the besmirching of the hallowed scientific method this has caused. What if some professional association of scientists loudly and publicly questioned 'the science'. It could be huge. Maybe you reach out somehow. I bet you know someone who knows someone... That's just one idea.